Thanks for being in touch (and I enjoyed our conversation).
One thing to note is that some of the trials we are considering could be considered trials in ‘what general paths and approaches to recommend’, rather than narrowly-defined specific scripts.
E.g., “reach out to a broad group of students” vs “focus on a small number of likely high-potential students.” This could be operationalized, e.g., through which ‘paths to involvement’ (through fellowship completion or through attending meetings and events), or through ‘which courses/majors to reach out to’.
However, every university group could still have the flexibility to adopt the recommended guidelines in a manner that aligns with their unique culture and surroundings.
We could then try to focus on some generally agreed ‘aggregate outcome measures’. This could then be considered a test of ‘which recommended general approach works better’ (or, if we can have subgroup analysis, ‘which works better where’.
Thanks for being in touch (and I enjoyed our conversation).
One thing to note is that some of the trials we are considering could be considered trials in ‘what general paths and approaches to recommend’, rather than narrowly-defined specific scripts.
E.g., “reach out to a broad group of students” vs “focus on a small number of likely high-potential students.” This could be operationalized, e.g., through which ‘paths to involvement’ (through fellowship completion or through attending meetings and events), or through ‘which courses/majors to reach out to’.
However, every university group could still have the flexibility to adopt the recommended guidelines in a manner that aligns with their unique culture and surroundings.
We could then try to focus on some generally agreed ‘aggregate outcome measures’. This could then be considered a test of ‘which recommended general approach works better’ (or, if we can have subgroup analysis, ‘which works better where’.